At an international level, we can expect that our one-sided measures to avoid emitting climate-damaging CO2 actually serve to suppress reductions other countries might otherwise make. On balance, our well-intentioned behavior is expensive for us and does nothing to protect the climate....

Everything we know suggests that Central Europe will suffer comparatively little from global warming. Berlin will simply have the temperatures that Rome does today. The adjustments we will have to make are quite manageable....

The amount we're spending in an attempt to reduce CO2 would be better invested in education and health in the regions that are under threat. Our goal should be to improve economic conditions in developing countries, because that in turn strengthens those countries' ability to adapt to climate change.

NOTE: Adapt to climate change. This is where we are heading. That's the inconvenient truth right now. The change will come, and we will need to adapt as actual changed conditions force us to adapt. We've been told the problem with adapting as the change occurs is that it will happen too quickly. Climate is always changing, but the problem with man-made climate change is that it comes too fast.

Why can't we slow the pace of change by changing what we do before the real-world change happens? It would require radical sacrifices and readjustments before we feel the pressure of the actual changes in the climate. People have trouble adapting quickly, which is supposed to be why we must act now, but it's also why we're not adapting to the predictions. The only thing we will adapt to is the climate change as it arrives. If it arrives quickly, it will challenge our capacity to adapt quickly, but we will do what we must, which will vary from place to place.

That's what Konrad is recognizing, even as he gives some sympathy to the people in the parts of the world who will suffer the most. They are also the "freeloaders" who won't make "concessions" to the first-world countries like Germany that might have nobly embraced sacrifice early on.

NOTE: In the comments, please don't rehash the question of whether global warming is a hoax, whether the predictions of climate change are correct, and so forth. Assume for the purposes of this discussion that the predictions are correct, that Berlin will become like Rome — and Madison like Mobile, Alabama — by midcentury. This post isolates a specific set of ideas that requires this assumption and the other — oft-discussed — topic will be a distraction.

Ann Althouse said...The most ethical thing for the first-world countries to do might be in the form of preparing elsewhere to adapt to the change rather than to put more resources in pursuit of avoiding the change.

Be realistic.

Pressuring Canada and the Russian to relax barriers to migrations might save more lives than erecting dikes around the Maldives.

It's also question of making smart choices rather than futile stances.

The most ethical thing the Advanced Sector could do would be to reduce useless and stupid government regulation of economic growth and investment. Let the inventors and entrepreneurs develop and sell the adaptive technologies and strategies now, so the market can ferret out the winners and losers as soon as possible. Let us move back to being a nation of givers, not takers.

I don't buy that adapting is cheaper than reducing C02, though not with the technologies currently blessed by greens. For some reason, Hydro, the cheapest, and Nuclear have been pulled off the table. These, apparently, are worse than the catastrophic effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

What we should be doing, is developing the Science of Volcanoes. A Microsoft guy thinks for $100B a year he can reduce global temps by pumping aerosols into the atmosphere.

So when catastrophe arrives, we can buy time pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, and then implement breeder reactors like France (though according to the protocol, they still get taxed for C02 even though their reactors produce no C02), migrate to methane in our cars, etc.

Instead, the Greens want to slow down the wind by getting energy from there, and taking desert heat that radiates away at night, and pump it into cities where inversion layers can trap it. Dumb greens.

In the United States, since 1990, the management of forests and non-agricultural land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted. This sink offset about 15% of total emissions in 2010 and is discussed in more detail in the Land Use and Forestry section.

They will need it to build sea walls or whatever they need to do to survive hurricanes and the flooding that ensues.

You know this, how? Hurricane intensity, etc., hasn't changed for recorded history. Oh, the number of storms etc., that have been found have, but that's because of satellites. Ground striking hurricanes haven't increased, nor their intensity. You have to stop believing the press on these matters.

New York and the east coast should get mo money honey. They will need it to build sea walls or whatever they need to do to survive hurricanes and the flooding that ensues.

There's already alot of govt money floating around that could be used for this. All coastal cities have some plans and usually boards and committees and departments that are formed and funded to deal with natural disasters. But, since the threat usually seems pretty remote, they are ineffective at implementing the type of long-term, expensive engineering projects required. They do manage to squander lots of money on studies and consultants and staffing.

We're a kick-the-can-down-the-road country. Rather than invest in preventive measures, we'd rather roll the dice and rebuild a coastal city once every 5-10 years. Politicians are also dis-incentivized to push for big earthwork projects. They don't buy votes the way "Free rubbers for everyone!" does.

Interesting gedanken experiment, Professor. (If you're not familiar with what that is just walk the half block over to Chamberlin Hall and ask the first person you meet.)

I will accept the premises of your argument, even though they are manifestly fallacious and much of what lies behind the premise that change might arrive quickly (i.e., Mann's "hockey stick") has been debunked long ago. Nevertheless ...

We will adapt. Pre-Columbian native Americans adapted the life in the Arctic and life in the Mojave Desert equally well using only stone age technology. 21st century h. sapiens will adapt as well. The heating bill for Madisonians will go down, air conditioning will go up. You, Althouse, will have to learn to tolerate men in shorts. Probably a wash.

Dante said... I don't buy that adapting is cheaper than reducing C02, though not with the technologies currently blessed by greens. For some reason, Hydro, the cheapest, and Nuclear have been pulled off the table. These, apparently, are worse than the catastrophic effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Hyrdro in this country is already maxed out, there are not very many places left that it is feasible to build more dams.

Nuclear just scares people to death because in the common citizen's mind a nuclear reactor is the same as a nuclear bomb.

What we should be doing, is developing the Science of Volcanoes. A Microsoft guy thinks for $100B a year he can reduce global temps by pumping aerosols into the atmosphere.

So when catastrophe arrives, we can buy time pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, and then implement breeder reactors like France (though according to the protocol, they still get taxed for C02 even though their reactors produce no C02), migrate to methane in our cars, etc.

This is geo-engineering and requires the further development of technology as a solution. Climate control on a planetary scale. Terraforming, etc, is more unnatural to Greens than anything else. Their goal isn't to be able to fine-tune the planet, it is to limit the growth of human population and the subsequent 'destruction' of the natural environment that humans cause. (the concept that humans are PART of the natural order is anathema)

Instead, the Greens want to slow down the wind by getting energy from there, and taking desert heat that radiates away at night, and pump it into cities where inversion layers can trap it. Dumb greens.

Greens are not about 'helping' humans live better lives, they are about 'helping' the 'natural' world not be raped by mean nasty humans. (At least those that aren't in it for the $ or power)

How will we compensate the low-lying nations, the islands in the Pacific which are being inundated? Do we have a consistent policy on coastlines, like no beach replenishment and buying up property along the beach? After the 1993 Mississippi floods some towns were relocated by FEMA, why not the same for areas hit by Sandy or Katrina?

Will our fix for immigration include easier access to the US for inhabitants of Nairu or Bangladesh?

What change is necessary? A yearly temperature cycle goes from less than zero degrees F to over 100degrees F. People are living - and continue to live- in all these regions. Animals and crops grow.

Lets assume that sea levels are rising and we aren't going to do anything about it. It's a freight train, and - according to the spittle-spewers - is blaring its horn. Well, we simply stroll off the tracks: simply, we aren't going to wake up one morning and find 2 feet of water in our living room.

I see it as a feature: wether one believes in God or evolution, the simple fact is that more people means more CO2; greater CO2 content means a greater crop potential. More crops means more food to feed the people.

Given the rules of the hypothetical, my first instinct is to sit the discussion out -- but being human I have the option of ignoring my instincts.

"People have trouble adapting quickly, which is supposed to be why we must act now, but it's also why we're not adapting to the predictions. "

Incorrect. The reason we're not adapting to the predictions is that they are predictions, not realities. In truth, people wait to adapt to realities because they have confidence in their ability to adapt. Quickly.

It is not that "people" have trouble adaspting quickly, it is that large institutions, especially governments, cannot adapt quickly. Which is all the more reason to keep the responsibility of adapting away from bureaucracies.

This sounds like an artifact of the human tendency to assume that other people are more like you than they really are. Some Germans thought people in other countries really believe that the moral thing to do would be to heavily restrict carbon use, or at least that we're close enough that the German example would push us over the line. But, no, a lot of Americans really are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and others believe the proposed cure is worse than the disease, while a lot of people (especially in less developed countries) just think economic development is more pressing.

The United States mandated that all cars built or imported run on unleaded gas beginning with the 1974 model year.

You couldn't even buy unleaded gasoline in Germany until ten years later. And you could still buy leaded gasoline there as late as 1995.

German narcissism about what wonderful environmentalists they are gets a little ridiculous. The United States has always led Europe -- and the rest of the world -- with regard to effective environmental regulation. We just don't brag about it.

The most ethical thing for the first-world countries to do might be in the form of preparing elsewhere to adapt to the change rather than to put more resources in pursuit of avoiding the change.

What change?

No one seems to be able to clarify or agree on the mere fact of climate change, global warming or what EVER. Much less agree or be clear as to whether the change is going to be that we are warming to level of the Roman warm period or the Medieval Warm period.....OR the other alternative that "global warming" is going to cause another ice age.

We have no idea WHAT to adapt to. SO to try to do anything is most like yet another waste of resources and time. Tilting after windmills. Chasing a will-o-the-wisp.

Until they can tell us with accuracy what the weather and temperatures will be like next week, next year....forget 100 years from now, there is no purpose in trying to adapt to a nebulous nothing.

You go ahead and adapt away for some hypothetical change. I'm busy living in the now.

Scott said... The United States has always led Europe -- and the rest of the world -- with regard to effective environmental regulation. We just don't brag about it.

The United States is unique in one specific regard. International representatives of every other country on earth believe a component of their job is to promote and defend their country. International representatives of the United States believe a component of their job is to denigrate and attack the United States.

How will we compensate the low-lying nations, the islands in the Pacific which are being inundated?

Who is this "WE" you speak of. Why is it OUR responsibility to take care of the whole world, especially since [if you buy into the Global Warming story], the countries that are the worst offenders of CO2 release are not the US or Germany. Until THEY also act like they believe in Global Warming, who cares?

I guess it's not as much fun engaging in hypotheticals concerning climate change as it is in the coming apocalypse for preppers, huh? ;)

Think about the apocalypse being caused by climate change.

I live in the real world. I take care of the things that I can do now. I don't concern myself with hypothetical disasters or with things that I can have no control over. Might we be hit by a big assed asteroid? Maybe. So what? Can there be an influenza plague? Probably. In a hundred years might it be warm enough in Madison to grow grapes and make wine. Maybe. maybe not.

None of those things -- global disasters--- can I control, so why bother worrying about it.

I CAN control how much food and other supplies I have in storage in case there is a natural disaster and to hedge against inflation of food costs. Most likely scenario for us is an earthquake in the urban area of SF or LA disrupting supplies to outlying areas. Not a hypothetical, since this happened in the 1980's and I expect it to happen again ..or snow storms emptying the grocery stores and gas stations. Not hypothetical as it also happened just this year. I CAN control how I protect myself and how we CAN provide for ourselves. I guess you find self reliance and prudent protection strategies hilarious.

If you want to continue to have the fantoid vapors over something that may or may not happen and over which you have zero control, please by all means do so.....feel free to continue to have your head firmly stuffed up your nether regions.

How do you know that there is going to BE an apocalypse with Global Warming, calling it Climate Change now is just a weaselly way to refuse to admit that you don't know what the fuck is going to happen....if anything.

As pointed out already, climate change can be a good thing :-) Just think of all the miles of ice you would be under if we didn't have climate change.

Oh...people will move...by the hundreds of thousands and the millions...fleeing no longer inhabitable areas and heading to...where? Will your town or state be able to accomodate the hordes fleeing from elsewhere? Or will they be locked into refugee camps? With the numbers of fleeing peoples there may be, such camps may become countries unto themselves, within the borders of whatever other land areas they may exist.

Or will the refugees be turned away, bouncing hither and yon until fate, whatever it may be, makes of them what it will?

When the whole world will be affected--as when the resources of the whole world become exhausted--where will any of us go?

I wonder if Mr. Konrad's advice doesn't more accurately reflect a change in German public opinion on global warming. Just about a year ago, The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen was published by a former environment minister and green activist, Fritz Vahrenholt, that became a surprise bestseller there.

The problem with ignoring the validity of the underlying premise is that the best way to prepare for actual climate change is to be honest about its causation so valuable resources, including scientific research, will not be diverted and wasted chasing a political agenda.

This "noble behavior" is not noble, it's political. (Although these days the political class believes itself to be the nobility so, okay, nevermind.) Inviting freeloaders is a feature, not a bug. It is a waste of money and time. It is a sham and a hoax.

For me, it not a matter of science or of who's right or who's wrong or good or bad( which I think is indicative of the stupidity of our politics)..for me it is about taking care of our home. It doesn't take a scientist to determine if the air or the water is clean and beautiful or if we are being goood stewards of the earth. At present we are not doing the job.

Konrad: A colleague of mine has correctly said: We are spending a great deal of money to protect the children and grandchildren of the same people we're allowing to starve today. The amount we're spending in an attempt to reduce CO2 would be better invested in education and health in the regions that are under threat. Our goal should be to improve economic conditions in developing countries, because that in turn strengthens those countries' ability to adapt to climate change.

This appears to be a bending of AGW extremism to find common ground. Warmists and Skeptics suddenly agree that there is no immediate concern for a sudden climate-related calamity; therefore we should enjoy the acknowledged benefits of the warming trend (which has inconveniently gone missing these past fifteen years.)

Realistically, however, our politicians, their rent-seeking corporate buddies, and rent-seeking (so-called) climate scientists are not about to turn off efforts to keep open the financial spigot that needlessly increases our public debt and punishes economic recovery. We do not need to redirect AGW spending, we need to stop all needless spending - period.

Oh...people will move...by the hundreds of thousands and the millions...fleeing no longer inhabitable areas and heading to...where? Will your town or state be able to accomodate the hordes fleeing from elsewhere?

Seriously, you envision a sudden mass running away from one area to another? All at once? Thousands of people flooding from one area to another like a stream of army ants? Really???

Any movements from affected areas (assuming your Global Warming story is true) would be over the course of decades and generations. People will have the time to adapt. Those that refuse to adapt, MOVE out or learn new ways to live.....too bad.

It is like those in New Orleans. You can stay and watch the sewage laden water creep up over your ankles, build fragile dikes to pretend that the water isn't rising. If you stay, you die or drown. Too bad, stupids. OR....gradually those with brains, will be moving out.

New Orleans has been sinking for several hundred years now. It didn't happen overnight. IF there is global warming, it isn't going to happen overnight either.

Population movements happen all the time. Otherwise we would all still be in Africa eating grubs and digging with sticks. The world got colder and the Vikings left their ice box countries. The Sahara used to be a lush grassland paradise.

DBQ, I DON'T know that there will be any apocalypse due to climate change OR any of the disasters you mentioned, that's what makes it a hypothetical. :)

Althouse merely asked commenters to engage in a hypothetical asking for ideas about how we could prepare for some climate change occurances, not a "which disaster of choice will cause the apocalypse" exercise.

Cook. You live in New York, right? Here is the official tide gauge record for NYC. It shows a steady 3mm per year rise from before the industrial age, with no acceleration due to global warming. Basically a foot or so per century.

So chill out, dude, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that millions of people are going to be displaced by global warming. All the actual measured data points to the conclusion that nothing unusual is going on. All the alarmism is based on computer model forecasts, not measured data.

Kai Konrad is expressing what every nation that bought the global warming BS will eventually be forced to express. It's not a good idea to spend billions of dollars on hypotheticals whether they are politically driven or not. When the shit hits the economic fan the first things to be abandoned will be the things with the lowest vote backlash.

Assume for the purposes of this discussion that the predictions are correct

OK. But I will also assume - and I direct you to assume - that the space lizards will arrive with a heat vacuum to suck up the excess warmth and bring it back to their home planet.

NOTE: In comments following mine, please don't speculate on whether the space lizards are real. The arrival of the space lizards will bring numerous challenges, and I don't want the discussion of how to deal with those challenges obfuscated by distractions.

What particular changes are you preparing for? Do you "know" if it is going to be warmer? Do you "know" if it is going to be colder? Are you going to prepare for a dust bowl type of climate change or are you going to get ready for monsoon storms?

There is no point in doing mental masturbation over this, since climate changes do not occur overnight and barring some sort of volcanic eruption or asteroid hit, neither does population diaspora.

The least effective way to adapt to ANYTHING is to have a massive government,run by morons and incompetents, trying to micromanage people's attempts to live.

DBQ, since I don't care only for my own survival, I do no personal prepping. As far as caring for our fellow humans, one great thing we could do now is pressure ourt legislators to draft and to pass laws forbidding the use of corn for fuel.

As far as caring for our fellow humans, one great thing we could do now is pressure ourt legislators to draft and to pass laws forbidding the use of corn for fuel.

I quite agree that the ethanol mandate is terrible policy, crony captialism at its worst. But why would you think that the government that gave us the ethanol mandate and Solyndra is going to do any better when it comes time to passing the next piece of global warming legislation?

Accepting the premise of the thread, let us ask what can be done to reduce CO2 emissions. It is generally assumed that the problem is people driving cars, but that is wrong-headed. Look at the question this way;

What can we do to make sure that the Iranians, the Saudis, the Nigerians, the Iraqis, and the Venezuelans all decide more or less immediately to stop pumping oil out from under their property and selling it? Also, how do we get the Chinese to mothball all the coal-burning electrical plants they have been building? Because if the warmists are right, it is not enough to slow down a little. The carbon has to stay in the ground, all of it.

Once you look at it that way, it should be apparent that it simply isn't going to happen. If the Germans want to cripple their economy, they are welcome to do so, but don't imagine for a moment that the Saudis are going to stop pumping oil.

Inga said...New York and the east coast should get mo money honey. They will need it to build sea walls or whatever they need to do to survive hurricanes and the flooding that ensues.

I'd argue almost the opposite. Catastrophic climate change might put unforeseen stress on arable land and food products. That coupled with a ban on Haber-Bosch production of fertilizers (which produces CO2 as a by-product of H2 production). Barring a nuclear or solar driven alternative process for splitting water, we may actually see a food crises of epic proportions that would make Malthus seem prophetic.

How will safeguarding urban hipsters help with food production? Or safeguarding Wall Street for that matter? It might be smarter policy to encourage a net migration "back to the land" to till the soil and to husband Nature's fecund blessings instead of walling up able-bodied people with nothing but coal-powered WiFi in Greenwich Village.

Of course I have more than enough food, water, and fuel in my house for much more than 72 hours, but I may not be able to stay in my house. Thus the 72 hour preparations are ready to be used in the event that staying in my house isn't an option.

If the US was serious, the feds would have taken the chance to reconfigure NO after Katrina. They didn't.

Via Powerline earlier this week:

...Yesterday the Research Council of Norway—that would be one of those national research bodies that the climateers relentlessly tell us we should pay attention to—issued the conclusion that global warming is likely to be much less severe than the “consensus” estimate of 2 – 4.5 degrees C. The Norwegian body thinks it will top out at 1.9 degrees:

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions: “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now....”

As to NY flooding? The continents float and NY will disappear in about 250M years. They're gonna squish together.

As to geothermal, which Norway & Iceland use - does anyone know how they get to it?

They dig holes and pour water in.

I checked this a couple of weeks ago because I was reading a post about fracking and I remembered Norway uses geothermal and was interested in how they access this.

Yes, Wyo Sis, I thought perhaps that you would say you stored that 72 hour emergency kit somewhere safe,, where a disaster of some sort would not wash it away, or burn it away, or blow it away. Where do you suggest that these disaster prep kits be stored?

Adaptation has the advantage not only that it works but that it is contingent and risks nothing on harebrained predictions. For this reason it requires nothing from the technocrats and intellectuals (redundant, I know) and will not be allowed without interferance.

Adapting to possible future climates will be no struggle at all compared to adapting to the societal plague of technocratic government. Any plan that puts planning aside to begin with in favor of the robust response of a human civilization that was never and never could have been planned into existance is doomed.

Just keep your eye on the blathering classes and be prepared as best you can for the fallout from that quarter. This is likely the best hope for surviving the plague of the planners.

"What we should be doing, is developing the Science of Volcanoes. A Microsoft guy thinks for $100B a year he can reduce global temps by pumping aerosols into the atmosphere."

When Yellowstone erupts (way past due), it won't be a problem for North America. It won't be this bad but North America will be toast. The rest of the world may have a new ice age. From Panama to Alaska will be ash and basaltic rock, which is what lava turns to when it cools.

Bad science is bad science. Sorry, Ann. Maybe this is too skeptic for you but some real anthropology and vulcanology is helpful.

The most ethical thing to do right now is power down our CO2 emitters to reduce the CO2 % in the atmosphere to avoid the calamity. A 50% cut within 5 years is do-able if we are all in this together. Who is gonna start by throwing away all their electronics?

Yes Wyo Sis, grab and go, but where do you store the kit? Are you suggesting filling the kit as a disaster is in progress? What if you have no warning? To grab and go the kits really should be pre filled, no? So where do they get stored? What is a safe storage place?

I think famine is a real threat, doesn't take much imagination, we've seen what happens in severe drought to third world countries. It's immoral to use food to burn in a gas tank so we can drive big honkin SUVs four blocks away to Starbucks.

Both parties are to blame for this ethanol folly. With outcry from both sides maybe we can avert a disaster.

There are always exceptions. Given the nature of most emergencies I think it's worthwhile to be prepared. If everything explodes at once I guess it will have been for nothing, but for now it makes me feel prepared.

Everybody knows that the climate must especially be saved from the shooters of guns target practicing.

OK, to adapt first we outlaw long pants.

Then we build ten million wind mills owned by AlGore and remove all carbon based energy producers, except those for the Federal Government's use in powering mobile and fixed Death Panel units, and then we make everyone else's electrical power bills $2,000 a month and make coal fires a capital offense.

Then we encourage suicide for the surplus people who by then will have no food shelter or clothing anyway.

Well, using the ground rules for the assumption, I'd have to say that we need to get as wealthy as possible so when it happens (and we know what the specifics are) we can take action then.

Investing in food/shelter/manufacturing technology is a start, also the means to do those, which will basically come down to energy in large part. Specifically if this is the case, we should be going in to expanding our nuclear power (which has minimal carbon issues), as well as shale gas/shale oil especially produced domestically (to cushion from overseas shocks).

Considering it has been warmer than now before (Medieval Warm Period, and so on), we should do Ok. Also since the time frame is still decades out, I personally do not feel that I can judge in terms of what we will have available when the time arrives. As a thought experiment, consider trying to visualize the computers of 2013 in 1976. The keep that in mind when we look forward to 2050.

The "too fast" that everyone talks about is "too fast" in geological terms.... not human ones.

Tens or hundreds of thousands of years instead of Tens of millions.

It's the answer given when someone points out that we're in an interglacial part of an "ice house" phase that may well see an ice age or two or more again before entering the warm phase that typified the age of dinosaurs and happens cyclically.

Because being warmer is obviously not a bad thing.

So a different argument has to be presented about how this is *so* a disaster. And that is that the warming is happening too fast. Faster than would be natural.

But it's still SLOW.

Nevertheless... If the pace and "disaster" is progressing at a human pace and at a human scale, and it is, it still is necessary to "adapt". But moving inland just a wee bit (and it is just a wee bit) in 50 or 100 years is a case of building new construction inland, and not of building sea walls. People migrate, it's practically a species mandate, and behaving as though it should never have to happen is bizarre.

Technology and science and development *ought* to be seen as the answer, but so far the whole "Thing" of it has been dominated by anti-technology... pastoralists. (I don't know what else to call them.) People who think that shitting in the rain forest is a transcendental experience. People who will not for a moment agree to support nuclear power or other exotic possibilities when they could see humanity pre-industrial instead.

The inconvenient truth is that these preferred answers wouldn't solve the problem even IF everyone did them. It's the biggest tell that alarmists are not serious... they're just emotional.

But, if we assume it as a fact, obviously we should respond by invading Canada.

I suggested this yesterday in one of Anne's threads. The great thing is that we have much less reason not to defend Canada then ever before. The Brits are in no position to intervene, as they did, or threatened to whenever this subject came up throughout the 19th Century. And, then we were firm allies, and so would never think of such a thing. And, as I pointed out, the English speaking majority would no longer need to learn a dying language just appease Quebec. Indeed, why not just leave Quebec alone, and concentrate on what is important - central and west Canada.

The relevant reason here for invasion is all the farmland that would be opened up by this warming. Under Ann's hypothetical, probably many millions of acres, currently frozen, or close to frozen, year around. Of course, Canada's energy resources would be advantageous too...

The problem though with this sort of thing is that the primary thing keeping the even larger chunk of currently-frozen potential farm land from changing hands is an aging nuclear arsenal. The ChiComs have been eying Siberia, in particular, for decades now. If much of Siberia were to open up to farming, due to Ann's assumptions of massive global warming, Russia wouldn't have the people to farm all this new farm land. China does. And, China also needs all those natural resources much more than the Russians do.

That may be though how the invasion is accomplished - Chinese "voluntarily" move north to farm all this new farm land, and, ultimately, they will likely be the majority, repeating somewhat how we won Texas and California from the Mexicans (But, then, we might lose them back, for the same reason, while we are busy in Canada).

Here is more evidence that a full court press is underway on delegitimatizing the constitution.

CBS’s Sunday Morning is of, by and for Progressives and this navel-gazing Georgetown Law professor, Louis Michael Seidman is addressing them directly. The session is called “Is the Constitution obsolete?”

So what is the noble behavior of controlling china and india to stop their rampant pollution generation so that it stops that pollution from making it to the US? Gosh, I wonder how that will work considering you have that silly thing called an atmosphere to work with.

DBQ, since I don't care only for my own survival, I do no personal prepping.

If you cared about anyone else, you WOULD do some personal prepping so that you don't become a big sucking liability to everyone else around you.

I agree on the ethanol. It is damaging to people who rely on corn as a food substance. It is harming the environment, creating food inflation costs. AND it is DESTROYING engines and components of engines that would have lasted for years. Engines and small tools that now have to be thrown away and replaced more frequently with newer cheaper crappier things. Take that Carbon Footprint and stuff it up Al Gore's butt.

IIRC, rapid climate change over the ages is almost always from warm to cold and typically happens when something like a meteor or volcano puts megatons of dust in the atmosphere, blocking out the sun and cooling the earth. Given the enormous populations of the world, billions of people would probably die from starvation. Best preparation on an individual level would be to stock up on huge amounts of food, fuel, and ammo. You would also have to construct a fort to ward off/kill your starving neighbors as they beg you for food. An alternative approach might be suicide. Presumably there would be a lot cannibalism. Cannabisism might help, too.

I can't imagine the mechanism for catastrophic rapid warming of the world. CO2 warms the earth by one degree per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, or one degree per two centuries at current rates of growth. Given that we will move off a fossil fuel energy based economy way before 200 years are up, the danger from catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 is minuscule.

Nonetheless, let's play along with the ridiculous Althouse premise. If it gets really hot down here in the contiguous 48, hello Canada. I guess the pressure is on Canada to figure out how to manage that process so it is least painful to the people who are now living up there.

One is about public morality, the 'who is deserving' question: those who cut emissions (like Germany and, even more, the US); those who will bear the brunt of the effects of CO2 emissions (low lying areas, and perhaps some that will suffer extremes of climate variation); or those who are trying desperately to catch up to the living standards of the first group (China, India, Brazil, etc.).

The second is about economics -- what policies will generate the most bang for the buck or euro as we all adapt to a changing climate, and how best to deal with the distributive effects of those policies. That discourse is basically an exercise in applying Coase's theorem on a global scale.

The third discourse is about geology and climatology -- what can be done physically to minimize the bad effects (you know the usual litany) and maximize the good effects (longer growing seasons, milder climate over the most populated parts of the globe) of a changing climate.

Things get really messy when, for example, people invoke the language of morality in a discussion about economics. But these three discourses invariably get mixed up. Makes for a huge dialog of the deaf.

What these Bozos never discuss ( not posters or commenters!) is that it may very well get colder in the coming years. Poor people will be freezing to death, crop yields will drop and energy bills will soar. If we want to prepare for climate change we must be ready for this. Thank God there is enough CO2 to grow the plants that will survive.

At an international level, we can expect that our one-sided measures to avoid emitting climate-damaging CO2 actually serve to suppress reductions other countries might otherwise make.

As I think about this, what arrogance. Germany makes up 2.63% of global C02 emissions. China makes up 25.53%.

India makes up 5.83%. Germany is "helping the world?" Fast forward 30 years, and China and India combined will produce 50% or perhaps more of the World's C02. Who cares about Germany's tiny contribution, which will be smaller and smaller.

If they feel guilty, they also ought to consider as C02 concentrations grow from China and India, their share of the increased heat Ann asks us to assume, will be an increasingly small share of temperature. Say Germany's share of heat today is .05 degrees, simply dying out as they are, and staying level with current C02 production, their share will drop to .025 degrees, and even less.

Germany, you don't have to worry. Admit your failure. The rest of the world doesn't share your values. The vision of self anointed savior of the earth is meaningless, as is your C02 contribution. It's tiny, and unless you are going to go head to head with China and India, it doesn't really matter. Nor does it matter much for the US either, as China has already outstripped the US in C02 production, and is expected to continue to far outstrip it, as will India.

Your attempt to keep the 3rd world impoverished to save the planet has failed. Now STFU.

The relevant reason here for invasion is all the farmland that would be opened up by this warming. Under Ann's hypothetical, probably many millions of acres, currently frozen, or close to frozen, year around. Of course, Canada's energy resources would be advantageous too...

You can tell Al Gore so believes in his own predictions, since he is buying Canadian property instead of beach front property.

The town of New Augusta, MS—county seat of Perry county—is called New Augusta because the original Augusta was washed away by a flood in 1906. Floods and towns being relocated because of them is nothing new.

BTW, I have recently been converting some of our old vinyl albums to computer/iPod files. I noticed that Bob Dylan does the blues and country very well. He sounds a little like Willie Nelson when doing country.

EDH wrote: "Attempting to prevent the incorrect cause will be a waste of resources and leave you with the same change you must adapt to."

You and I are the only people I ever hear mention these other possibilities. Even if we do ruin our economies, the climate could warm anyway. We could get it wrong in either cause, magnitude of the warming, or effectiveness of the mitigating efforts. The climate could also decide to cool, or just not change.

To decide to purposefully shoot ourselves in the foot to address just one of the possibilities is just foolish. It's pushed by a consensus of those who are foolish, some who are carelessly ideological, and some who are just corrupt.

We cannot be this stupid. Adaptation will risk nothing, bankrupt no one, only enrich those who are effective, and it will actually work, because no matter what eventuality we do experience, we simply adapt to that, and not some mistaken prediction.

We cannot be this stupid. Adaptation will risk nothing, bankrupt no one, only enrich those who are effective, and it will actually work, because no matter what eventuality we do experience, we simply adapt to that, and not some mistaken prediction.

The men steering the Titanic that April night knew full well about the ice danger. They seem stupid in retrospect, for not having prevented the collision. Most aboard were oblivious to the real danger until it was too late, but in the end, each "adapted."

Be careful about using "we", because back then, as now, the reason things happen or don't happen is still mostly beyond our control. But there will always be someone who knows the risks better than others, just as some have a better chance at "adapting" by virtue of birth and circumstance.

Crashing the economy or responding to climate risk may be someone's simple decision, but it's not mine. I'm just a stoker who can swim.

@wholelottasplainin': Please check your sources. I didn't write what you attribute to me. I said that I carried more than 72 hours worth of sequestered carbon with me at all times--meaning I could go without food for 72 hours.

The Titanic is a good analogy. The thing sank because they misdiagnosed the danger ahead, and had the wrong remedies ready. They trusted the experts, and put all their eggs in one basket. The Titanic could have been saved by simply asking what if they experts are wrong?

Ann -- You say, "Assume for the purposes of this discussion that the predictions are correct, that Berlin will become like Rome — and Madison like Mobile, Alabama — by midcentury."

The thing is, there are no serious predictions, even from the alarmists, that there will be anything like this magnitude of warming, certainly not by mid-century. The central predictions of the climate-science establishment are for 0.2 to 0.3C per decade in the first half of this century. (Let's leave behind the fact that in the first decade the trend was 0.0C/decade.) So that would come to about a 1.0C warming by mid-century.

Weather.com's climatology page for Madison shows average January temperatures of 10F low and 28F high; average July temperatures of 60F low and 83F high. The page for Mobile shows average January temperatures of 40F low and 61F high; average July temperatures of 73F low and 91F high.

In winter, that is a difference of 31.5F, or 17.5C. In summer, that is a difference of 10.5F, or 5.8C. These numbers are vastly greater than the predicted 1.0C rise.

What if we got the projected 1.0C rise or somewhat more by mid-century? That won't even get Madison to Cincinnati's temperatures, which average 9F, or 5C hotter than Madison. I picked Cincinnati as a city somewhat south of Madison that I thought would be slightly warmer than Madison. Then I realized that Meade is from Cincinnati (IIRC). You can ask Meade how he survived that boiling city...

Decades of war have left Europeans feeling they must be making common sacrifice in order to feel they have purpose. When Americans are uncomfortable, we become creative. When Europeans are uncomfortable, they seek being taken care of and setting rules about taking care of others.

England embraces sacrifice to stop global warming, even though this is the least sunny, barely warm county. But they just aren't satisfied unless they feel a little uncomfortable for the good of others.

Global warming as described by the professor would mostly (negatively, as opposed to turning Berlin into Rome; they should be so lucky) impact Third Worlders and therefore can be ignored. Unless it would drown the Ummah in which case let's release more CO2 in any way possible. A few key Western cities might or might nor need dikes. Boo freaking hoo.

The nice thing about adaptation compared to prevention is that we are assured of no wasted effort.

Two scenarios: One. We spend huge amounts of money reducing CO2 output and the climate may; 1. Not change, 2. get colder 3. get warmer anyway. With 2 & 3 we still have to adapt. Two. We do nothing to prevent whatever change comes and just adapt to what happens.

In my earlier comment, I argued that the warming projected by the climate establishment would come nowhere near the rhetorical excess of "Berlin like Rome, and Madison like Mobile". But (sort of) answering our hostess' core question, what should we do to adapt to this presumed warming?

My answer is that we neither should, nor need to, do much. First of all, the warming is projected to occur mostly in the coldest regions and times -- at high latitudes, in winter, and at night. This is the supposed "signature" of greenhouse warming. (This is due to the fact that water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, and increased CO2 only has much effect in the colder regions/periods where/when there is not much water vapor in the air.) So the biggest practical effect of the projected warming would be to open up additional Canadian prairies and Russian steppes to farming.

In the tropics, the worst effects would be changing rainfall patterns, as there is historical eveidence that these patterns have changed noticeably with (natural) warming and cooling cycles. But since you cannot get to the projected warming levels without a greatly increased hydrological cycle adding more water vapor to the air, in general, the rains would increase.

Add to this the fact that additional CO2 in the air both increases the rate of growth in crops and permits them to grow with less water, then this warming should be a net positive even in the poor areas of the tropics.

But what if a poor tropical region is one of those that is hit by more persistent drought? The best thing we can do for them is to help them develop and diversify their economies in the mean time so they would not be dependent on one or two crops, and could make money even if the crops failed. We did not have mass starvation in the American midwest from last year's drought.

Climate change is a hot topic right now, especially with what is currently happening in different parts of the world, with natural disasters occurring in places that we haven’t really thought of. Even Melbourne is not spared. Recently we experienced cold weather when previously that month was supposed to be warm and sunny.